Standing Committee H

[Mr. Roger Gale in the Chair]

Higher Education Bill

Roger Gale: I have a few housekeeping announcements. Hon. Members may remove their jackets, and that rule will stand when I am in the Chair. I cannot speak for my co-Chairman.
 For the benefit of those beyond the Bar, I should say that it is conceivable that there might be mild interest in later proceedings, so the Public Gallery may fill up, in which case I propose to do what I have done in the past, which is to rope off the far end of the Committee Room to enable members of the public to use the seats on each side. If we reach that stage, hon. Members will need to use the centre Door, including for Divisions. For the comfort and security of all concerned, I also propose to ask the Officials of the House to issue those who are present this morning, who may be presumed to have an interest in all the Bill's proceedings, with some identification or ticket that I shall sign. If we find it necessary to expand the space available to those in the Public Gallery, those with the ticket will be the people asked to sit in the body of the kirk. 
 I remind the Committee that debate on the programme motion may continue for up to half an hour.

Alan Johnson: I beg to move,
 That—
 (1) During proceedings on the Higher Education Bill the Standing Committee (in addition to its first sitting on Tuesday 10th February at 9.10 am) do meet on that day at 2.30 pm, and thereafter on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 9.10 am and 2.30 pm, except that the Committee shall not meet on Tuesday 17th February or Thursday 19th February;
 (2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely Clauses 1 to 13, Schedules 1 and 2, Clause 14, Schedule 3, Clauses 15 and 16, Schedule 4, Clauses 17 to 29, Schedule 5, Clauses 30 to 45, Schedule 6, Clause 46, Schedule 7, Clauses 47 to 50, new Clauses, new Schedules;
 (3) the proceedings on Clauses 1 to 13, Schedules 1 and 2, Clause 14, Schedule 3, Clauses 15 and 16, Schedule 4 and Clauses 17 to 20 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 am on Thursday 12th February;
 (4) the proceedings on Clauses 21 to 29, Schedule 5 and Clauses 30 to 38 (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 am on Thursday 4th March;
 (5) the remaining proceedings on the Bill (so far as not previously concluded) shall be brought to a conclusion at 5 pm on Thursday 4th March.
 I am delighted to serve once again under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. You have already demonstrated in your opening remarks the sagacity for which you are renowned. When the other four Bills that I have piloted through the House as a Minister started, I had some certainty that we would end up in 
 Committee, but it is with a particular sense of elation that I open the Committee proceedings today. At one stage, it might have been moderately questionable whether we would reach this stage. I am glad that we have, because it enables us to give the Bill the line-by-line scrutiny that it deserves. 
 On the programme motion, we believe that with a Bill of 50 clauses, 12 sittings will do justice to the arguments that we need to have. You referred to public interest in the Bill, Mr. Gale, and whereas there have been demonstrations about some aspects of the Bill, there have been none to my knowledge against the arts and humanities research council or the office of the independent adjudicator. This is a good opportunity to concentrate on those issues, although it is fair to say that the real controversy surrounds the fees and the regulator. We have tried to ensure that there is sufficient time to deal with those arguments. 
 We have also tried to ensure that the devolution of student support to the Welsh Assembly is given time for debate, as it is important to the people of Wales. It is right that the programme motion gives sufficient time for debate, and we think that half a day is sufficient. 
 I have behind me the creme de la creme of Labour Back Benchers, and I see on the Opposition Benches people of equal esteem, including the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). I have said on many occasions that it is always comforting for a Johnson to have a Boswell opposite. I look forward to our deliberations, and I hope that the Committee will accept the programme motion, which is a sensible attempt to ensure that all the major issues are debated.

Tim Collins: I begin by joining the Minister in saying how much we look forward to proceedings under your chairmanship, Mr. Gale, and to what will be a lively set of debates. Both you and the Minister were right to note that the Committee might attract slightly more than the usual interest from the wider public in our parliamentary proceedings. That reflects the fact that the Government chose to make the Bill their flagship measure in the Queen's Speech. It was the first piece of legislation that Her Majesty mentioned and, as the Minister said, it caused great speculation outside the House about whether it would receive a Second Reading.
 Our problem with the programme motion is that it does not reflect the importance of the Bill or the interest in it that exists outside the House. As an Opposition, we asked for the Committee stage to be taken on the Floor of the House, but we were unable to persuade the Government to do that. We requested, following precedent on very controversial legislation, two days of debate on Second Reading, but we were unsuccessful in persuading the Government of that. We requested full and adequate time for debate in Committee, and our view continues to be that 12 sittings spread over only six days is inadequate. We have on many occasions established that we are not in favour in principle either of programme motions or of knives within them. They inevitably stifle debate and make it difficult to hold proper and full debates on 
 subjects that may not easily be foreseen as attracting many submissions from outside interest groups, and we are saddened by that situation. 
 I register our continuing concern and disappointment that the composition of the Committee does not, on the face of it, reflect properly the ruling of ''Erskine May''. The 1997 edition, page 693, states that 
''the Committee will always ensure that standing committees reflect the party political composition of the House''. 
I am sure that the Government would say that the Committee does so. ''Erskine May'' goes on to state that it should be ensured that 
''in the case of bills which divide the House on cross-party lines''— 
it is difficult to argue that this Bill is not such a Bill— 
''the strength of opinion as expressed in any division at second reading is properly reflected''. 
You will recollect that the majority on Second Reading for the Bill was only five, Mr. Gale. Pro rata, therefore, the Government should have a majority of only one on the Committee. Depending on how one defines the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), who abstained on Second Reading, the Government have a majority of either four or five, which is four or five times greater than ''Erskine May'' states that they should have. I do not intend to prolong the point.

Roger Gale: Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to place his view on the record, but I am sure that he would not want to quarrel with Mr. Speaker's ruling. The composition of the Committee is entirely delegated to the Committee of Selection, which has done its job, and Mr. Speaker has ruled on the Floor of the House that that job was done to his satisfaction. That, I am afraid, must be the end of that matter.

Tim Collins: I am grateful, Mr. Gale. I had not intended to refer to the matter further, and I will not do so.
 I recognise that the Minister has enabled us, within the 12 sittings that are provided for by the programme motion, to have the vast majority of our proceedings on what he rightly described as the meat of the legislation, which is the provisions on top-up fees and all the surrounding issues. Although we are not happy with the idea that there are only 12 sittings, I applaud the Minister for having recognised that such issues comprise the bulk of the Bill and the point on which we want to have most discussion. Having registered our general concerns about the programme motion, I am happy to see if other hon. Members wish to comment.

Phil Willis: I, too, take the opportunity to welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Gale, and to pass on our congratulations to Mr. Hood who will be your co-Chairman during the proceedings. We have enjoyed working with you before, and I have no doubt that your background in light entertainment will stand you in good stead as you try to direct this hand-picked cast to debate this crucial Bill. We will miss the multi-talented hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) but we look forward to the hon. Member for Westmorland
 and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) and his hon. Friends putting some flesh on the bones of Conservative policy as we progress through the Bill.
 It is interesting that, having complained about the composition and political balance of the Committee, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale conveniently neglected to say that the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) was not selected by the Conservatives to be part and parcel of their group. We will miss the views of that hon. Gentleman. 
 What has emerged from the Labour casting couch is interesting. I understand that they were going to run ''I'm a celebrity, get me in there'' to choose people for the Committee. I am sure that the three Ministers, one Whip and 10 would-be future Ministers will offer something equal to the right hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East and Wallsend (Mr. Brown). The hon. Member for Cambridge has not burnt her boats by abstaining on Second Reading, but the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Mudie) will have to reappraise his career options after daring to be loyal to his party.

Roger Gale: Even by my standards, which are pretty low in light entertainment, the hon. Gentleman has gone off the script. We are discussing the programme motion; I have already ruled on the composition of the Committee.

Phil Willis: You are always so wise on such matters, Mr. Gale, and I will obey your every instruction.
 We accept that 12 sittings are probably sufficient to debate the Bill. We accept that the real decisions will sadly not be made in Committee; they will be made on the Floor of the House on Report and Third Reading. We want an early assurance from the Minister that we are not wasting our time in Committee. The Secretary of State's statement, made on the Floor of the House, that this is an everything or nothing Bill makes a mockery of having a debate in Committee, and I hope that the Minister will put us right on that. 
 We accept that the emphasis of the Bill is the issue of differential fees and the future of the university system. We are grateful to the Minister for recognising that and putting aside the bulk of the time for a thorough examination of the effects of top-up fees on the future of the higher education system. However, other key elements of the Bill are important. We welcome the new arts and humanities research council, and particularly the huge grant from the Secretary of State for the research of medieval history. We are also interested in student complaints. That has been regarded as a non-contentious element of the Bill, but it has significant effects. We hope that the Minister will keep an open mind when considering some of the amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) and I have tabled. 
 Having said that, we are anxious to start debating the Bill. We intend to co-operate with the Government, and hope to improve this bad Bill. We hope that by the time the Bill has passed through the Committee, under your excellent leadership Mr. Gale, it will be worthy of debate on the Floor of the House, to be ultimately defeated.

Tim Boswell: I echo the remarks already made by members of the Committee about your chairmanship, Mr. Gale. I will not abuse your wisdom by speaking at length about the following matter when I would much rather debate the substance of the Bill. However, instead of intervening on my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, I wanted simply to record one point about the timing. The problem with the breakneck speed of Government legislation is that it provides scant time for reflection and preparation by the excellent bodies that prepare work, amendments and arguments for members of the Committee. It provides even less time for members of the Committee to reflect on that work. For this to be a real process, and not merely a shallow appearance of one, Ministers require time for the arguments to sink in.
 I respect the Minister, who has been personally kind to me, for his attention to the arguments. Ministers, and all members of the Committee, must be able to consider what is said and to allow the debate to evolve. I can tell hon. Members, including Government Members, who may firmly support Government policy—there will be a few—that there will be points of difficulty worthy of consideration in all clauses, including those that appear non-contentious. I think that the common wish of members of the Committee, whether or not they like the legislation, is to ensure that it works as well as it can. We have to work within time constraints, as has happened on other Bills, but that will probably unnecessarily constrict the process in this case. In the manner of the serpent that swallows the chicken, if an issue is not dealt with immediately, it will have to be stored for further consideration on Report or perhaps in another place. I am not sure that that is the best and most efficient way to do business.

David Rendel: I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale, and I am grateful for the chance to make a brief contribution. I am slightly concerned because the Minister, in saying that he believed that the last half-day would be sufficient to consider the remaining clauses, mentioned that he thought that the important part of that would relate to Wales. I should hate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who is on the Front Bench, to think that I thought that Wales was in any sense unimportant, but it was our feeling that the issue to do with Wales was comparatively non-controversial and therefore might not take up too much time, important though it is.
 If the Minister really thinks that most of the last half-day will be taken up purely with the Welsh clause, that will mean that we cannot spend much time on the bankruptcy clause, which is also important, on other clauses to do with information, to which we have tabled amendments, and on the three new clauses, all of which also come under that part of the knife. I hope that he will reassure us that he does not expect to spend all that time on Wales; otherwise, we might need to extend the time.

Alan Johnson: I do not accept the point made by the hon. Member for Daventry that we are moving at breakneck speed. The Bill has 50 clauses and involves controversial issues, but I think that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have agreed that we have allowed enough time for them to be considered. We published the Bill on 8 January, a year after we published the White Paper that contains virtually every element of the Bill. Nothing has changed in that respect, so we cannot be accused of moving at breakneck speed. [Interruption.] I hear the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) comment from a sedentary position. He has asked me a parliamentary question, the answer to which will detail how much has changed from the White Paper since January 2003. The answer will be ''zilch'', but will be couched in much more elegant terms.

Chris Grayling: The regulatory impact assessment says explicitly at a number of points that measures in the White Paper have been dropped.

Alan Johnson: I delete ''zilch''. There are a few minor issues, which will be fully explained in my answer to the hon. Gentleman's written question.
 No one from our ranks who opposed the Bill applied to be on the Committee. I will not take that point any further, because I respect your ruling, Mr. Gale, but we needed to make that point in response to the points that were made with regard to ''Erskine May''. 
 On the points made by the hon. Member for Newbury, I emphasised the position of Wales, but we have allowed half a day for the whole of part 4 of the Bill, which includes the issue of bankruptcy. I fully accept that that is an element and I suggest that we will not spend that full half-day purely on Welsh issues. The hon. Gentleman is probably right that little controversy surrounds those issues, although we shall see when we reach that part. I should have mentioned that the bankruptcy issue is equally important, as are other clauses in part 4. Half a day is sufficient to debate the whole of that part. 
 Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 18, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Roger Gale: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill; copies of the resolution are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice must be given of any amendments. As a general rule, my co-Chairman and I do not intend to call any starred amendments, including starred amendments that may be reached in the course of an afternoon sitting of the Committee.Clause 1 Arts and Humanities Research Council

Clause 1 - Arts and Humanities Research Council

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tim Collins: I thought that it might be useful at this early stage, given that the clause creates the arts and humanities research council, to tease out some issues related to the running of the council and, in particular, its future relationship with the rest of Whitehall. Members of the Committee may recall that the Secretary of State referred to the creation of the council in his speech on Second Reading. He said:
 ''The Bill will create an arts and humanities research council—the first new research council since 1994 and a major step forward for the arts and humanities community, giving those disciplines their proper status.'' 
Making what I thought was rather a good joke, he continued: 
 ''Some might call that measure the revenge of the medieval historians.''—[Official Report, 27 January 2004; Vol. 417, c. 167.] 
I want to find out from the Minister exactly how the arts and humanities research council will operate in Whitehall after its creation. 
 Paragraph 64 of the explanatory notes state: 
 ''It is intended that the Arts and Humanities Research Council should receive its funding from the Office of Science and Technology as part of the same budget as the existing research councils, and take part in discussions about funding in exactly the same way.'' 
The funding of the existing Arts and Humanities Research Board through the Education Departments is discussed, and it is then stated that 
''from 2005-06 this funding will transfer from the existing funding departments to the DTI.'' 
That is the point that I wanted to tease out. 
 It is worth noting what the Department of Trade and Industry says about the role of the Office of Science and Technology, which will, as a result of the provisions in the Bill, become the new home for arts and humanities research. The Office of Science and Technology website quotes the Prime Minister as saying that 
''the science base is the absolute bedrock of our economic performance.'' 
It then sets out the objectives of the Office of Science and Technology, of which the first is 
 ''To sustain and improve the science and engineering base.''
It describes the existing research councils, all of which, perhaps not surprisingly, have a very heavy scientific basis. The list includes the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, the Economic and Social Research Council, which is arguably slightly closer to arts and humanities than the others, the Natural Environment Research Council, and the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council. 
 I understand that it is expected that, within the Office of Science and Technology, the arts and humanities research council will come under the director general of research councils. He was appointed to the post with effect from 1 January 2004—a full year after the Government set out in the higher education White Paper their intention to create an arts and humanities research council and to place it in the Office of Science and Technology. However, the person who has been appointed to be director general of research councils is Professor Sir Keith O'Nions. He has an extremely distinguished academic and public service record, but it is heavily and, some might argue, exclusively scientific. He has been professor of the physics and chemistry of minerals and head of the department of earth sciences at the university of Oxford. He was a demonstrator and then lecturer in geochemistry at the university of Oxford and he was professor of geology at Columbia university. I will not read out his full curriculum vitae, but the point is that he has an immensely distinguished, but wholly scientific background. 
 It is not simply that the arts and humanities will be located within the Office of Science and Technology, but that the Department that bats for them, argues for their funding with the Treasury and sponsors their work will be the DTI rather than the Department for Education and Skills. The Secretary of State who has responsibility to Parliament for accounting for the public moneys that are provided to them will be from the DTI rather than the DFES. It will be within your recollection, Mr. Gale, that there was a time when the DFES was the Department of Education and Science and so all those things were located within the one Department. 
 The decision has been taken—I do not query that this morning—that science logically fits with the DTI. One of the reasons for that—the Government are quite explicit about this—is that they wish to encourage further growth of business sponsorship, business relationships and the development and practical application of scientific and technological breakthroughs to boost the competitiveness of UK industry. Those are entirely desirable objectives, but the reason I am seeking to tease out from the Minister his thinking on these matters is that it is not entirely obvious that arts and humanities have the same business spin-off, technological impact and scientific grounding. 
 The Government refer in their explanatory notes, quite rightly and understandably, to the value of interdisciplinary research and the greater 
 opportunities that are created by looking at matters across the arts and science spectrum. Of course, it is true to say that there a large number of areas where scientific and arts and humanities research will overlap. Sometimes it has to do with the use of technology such as carbon dating for looking into the past. Sometimes it has to do with the use of computer technology in analysing whether a lost text was the work of Shakespeare. 
 It would also be true to say that many specialists in the arts and humanities would not naturally assume that their work or their expertise is the same as that of specialists in the physical sciences. I have no doubt that the Minister will be able to cite a large of number of people in the field of arts and humanities who have supported the creation of the arts and humanities research council. I wish to place on record that I do not say that it is an inappropriate step for the Government to take. In fact, in principle, the Opposition are in favour of it. However, it matters significantly whether the research council will have an opportunity to thrive within what will be quite a different environment. Arts and humanities have not hitherto been part of the DTI. 
 A further subject for some concern, but about which the Minister may be able to reassure us, again comes from the explanatory notes to the Bill. Referring to future funding for arts and humanities research, they state: 
 ''Provision for 2005-06 is estimated as £78m.'' 
In the overall scope of public spending that is not a huge sum, but within the field of arts and humanities research I suspect that it is regarded as extremely important and no doubt enables quite a bit of work to be done that otherwise would not proceed either at all or on the same scale. However, the explanatory notes continue: 
 ''Annual expenditure on direct funding related to arts and humanities research will vary from year to year, and a projected annual figure is therefore not available.'' 
Again, in principle, few would object to the fact that the Government perhaps could not be expected to set out the detail many years ahead, although the Chancellor is usually at great pains to explain that one of his great innovations is the construction of the comprehensive spending review and the fact that it has given most areas of public funding a greater degree of predictability over a three-year time scale rather a one-year time scale as applied in the past. However, the explanatory notes go on to say that replacement of the Arts and Humanities Research Board with a fully fledged research council creates potential labour savings for the new AHRC as its systems are aligned with other research councils. That could mean something or nothing, but it is possible that one of the reasons for creating the new research council is to save a bit of money in respect of those who work for the AHRB. That is not necessarily a bad thing; there is considerable scope for efficiency savings in many areas of public life, and the Government may have successfully and appropriately identified one of them. 
 However, a pattern begins to emerge. As far as arts and humanities research is concerned, the Government are giving the community something that I suspect the vast majority will welcome: the status that goes with being a proper research council, and the recognition that the work of arts and humanities deserves parity of esteem with scientific research. A statement has been made from a very high level, by the Secretary of State—I expect that the Minister will make it, too—of the Government's commitment to, and recognition of, the importance of arts and humanities research alongside other academic research. 
 As framed in the explanatory notes, funding is predicted only for the first financial year after the transfer in 2005-06, and thereafter it is explicitly flagged up that it will vary from year to year—the wording does not say ''varying while continuing to increase'', it says ''vary''. That leaves open the opportunity for it to reduce, especially if responsibility is transferred to the Department of Trade and Industry. That Department has many strengths, but part of its core mission in life is not to promote arts and humanities research, because it has many other schemes, projects, mission statements and objectives that it would wish to pursue. There is a danger, not necessarily in the first or even the second year of the transfer, but down the line, that the DTI might take the view that it had inherited the strange, esoteric field of arts and humanities research, very little of which had much to do with promoting economic competitiveness, exports or the growth of UK industry. In a tough public spending round negotiation with the Treasury it might take the view that arts and humanities research could offer a relatively painless range of savings. I should be grateful for reassurance from the Minister on that matter. 
 What discussions have the Minister's officials had with those from the DTI about the attitude of the new Department responsible for arts and humanities research to the proposed research council after it has been set up? Were his officials, who at present deal with the AHRB, consulted before the appointment of the director general of research councils, Professor Sir Keith O'Nions? Have they received assurances that in the future arts and humanities work of Research Councils UK will be given a higher priority? The Government's website states that the chief executive of the AHRB already attends meetings of Research Councils UK as an observer. That may cause slight concern in the arts and humanities community, as the main tasks of Research Councils UK are listed as developing the strategy for investing the science budget, investing in world-class facilities such as the new, high-performance computing capability and the new synchrotron radiation source, and ensuring that investment in science and technology benefit the UK's economy. 
 Under the present structure of Research Councils UK, even though the director general knows that it is highly likely that the arts and humanities research council will join and that the chief executive of the 
 AHRB already attends its meetings, there is no reference to anything non-scientific in the objectives or the mission statements of Research Councils UK. Has the Minister secured an undertaking from the Department of Trade and Industry that the changes will be reflected in the mission statements and objectives of the Office of Science and Technology at large and of Research Councils UK specifically? In short, the arts and humanities community, which widely welcomes the creation of a research council, would further welcome anything that the Minister can say to reassure us that, even after the transfer of responsibility for these matters to a Department that is not innately assumed to have a huge grasp of the importance of arts and humanities, proper importance will continue to be given to that work, which the Government will continue to make a priority.

Roger Gale: I should make it plain that there is an inevitable inter-relationship between clauses in a Bill as complex as this. Hon. Members will find that some amendments that apply to later clauses have been grouped with earlier clauses. It is immediately apparent, for example, that the debate on clause 1 is already touching on matters relating to clause 3. I have no problem with that, providing that members of the Committee understand that we shall debate the issues once, not twice.

Tim Boswell: Many of us from all parties will lament the absence of the former hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster, now Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and I much enjoyed when we led for our party. In his final years in this place, he would come in to Committees as a Back Bencher and delight them either with cricket stories—on which I did not feel as strongly as him—or with classical references, with which I cannot claim to match him but in which I shared an interest.
 Germane to our consideration of the arts and humanities research council is the analogy between the ranks of Government Back Benchers attending the Committee and the formation of a Greek hoplite army; tightly grouped, working in a narrow phalanx and, above all, ensuring that nobody steps out of line. With the greatest respect to Ministers and Government Members, the difficulty is that that is a somewhat inflexible procedure. Some may be aware of the analogy of Apamanondus, who was the first Theban general to defeat the Spartans for 400 years. He caused them great distress, and a kind of psychological breakdown, at the battle of Lutra in 371 BC when he manoeuvred by concentrating his forces on the left and broke in to the hoplite formation, which fell down completely. That is the only Brookeism to which I shall treat the Committee this morning. 
 I hope that the Minister will not feel upset if I say that I agree with the clause; I indicated that on Second Reading and I do so again, as it is the right thing to do. I shall say a little about the reservations of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, which I share, but the basic decision is right. It is right 
 to give the arts and humanities community a pukka research council, both as a matter of status and because it will enable it fully to access resources within the research council net. 
 I have a number of interests in the area. First, I am a humanities person through and through myself. Secondly—somewhat to my surprise, but it is amazing how training transfers—I sat for two years on a science research council in the late 1980s. Thirdly, I was Higher Education Minister when some of these ideas were beginning to be developed. The arts and humanities community's interest then, as now—judging from the briefing that I have seen—was in favour of a full research council. We should not stand in its way. 
 I have been reflecting—although I have not had time to access and check through all the files—on the arguments that were deployed in my time as a Minister for not creating a council. In a sense, the arguments are behind the reservations that my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has already mentioned, and they are still matters on which Ministers need to reflect. Ministers need to be sensitive in dealing with the humanities in establishing the council. 
 Essentially, the problem is one of scale, and we should consider the characteristics and management of the higher education sector. For example, if we compare the proportion of vice-chancellors who come from a big science background, where they are used to managing substantial research teams and resources, with the proportion that come from an arts or humanities background, we see that there is a strong preponderance in favour of science. 
 Universities clearly require substantial resources to carry out their work—that point may also come up in later debates—and that does not exclude the humanities, which need library facilities, IT support and so forth. However, in a way that is not universally feasible in science, it is possible for a lone scholar to sit in a garret and puzzle a problem of philosophy, ancient history or logic and argue it through with a pen, paper and their own brain. That is the cultural and scale difference between the humanities and the sciences. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has already referred to the second reservation. It concerns the transfer that effectively farms the council off to the Department of Trade and Industry, of which I was not fully aware until I read the small print. If we are going to establish a research council, it would be inappropriate to leave it uniquely under the control of his Department. I notice that the Minister is nodding. The council has to transfer, as it cannot be half one and half the other. 
 There are some important sensitivities, to which the Minister could helpfully respond, about his Department's continuing relations with and interest in the arts and humanities. Indeed, he might want to say something about his relations with the sciences, and I shall return to that later. There are also particular interests among the arts and humanities world from other organisations and bodies that will remain at least under the general sponsorship and encouragement of 
 the Department. I am thinking of, for example, the British Academy and the British archaeological schools in Athens and Rome. These are matters in which the Minister and his successors will be taking an interest. We must also consider what is taught in schools, and progression issues. As we are slightly more at leisure this morning, it would be helpful if the Minister commented on those points. 
 The other area that featured in the theology of our decision about 10 years ago when I was Minister not to move to a full-blown research council concerned the future of the dual support funding. As the Minister will know, the funding is divided between the research councils' contracts or grant arrangements for service and the Higher Education Funding Council for England money, which is tied to the research assessment exercise and pays for blue-skies research. Ministers are rightly anxious to defend and maintain that distinction. 
 We must take note, although perhaps in a different context from this morning, that Lord May—a former chief scientist whom I greatly respect—said cheerfully that we could allocate all funding through the research councils, simplify the system and not bother with the HEFCE research funding. That would not be appropriate, but the Minister might want to comment on it. 
 I have several points that I should like to list solely to get them out of the way so that I do not need to intervene on later amendments. First, will the Minister confirm that the charter of the proposed council will provide for an ability to receive and deploy external funds? I remember from my time on a research council that although the prime funding—about 90 per cent.—was through the Government department that became the OST in due course, there was a significant amount of private sector funding. I imagine that the Minister will not want to discourage external funding, whether it is through endowment, commercial contracts, intellectual property or whatever. 
 The second point, which relates to external activities, is probably covered sufficiently by clause 8. I am sure that the Minister will endorse my view that there are important academic linkages. The academic world is not confined to the UK or even parts of the UK, important as some of us think they are; I have a Welsh wife, so I have an interest in those clauses, too. Most academics, particularly in the world of the internet, converse academically, and collaborate and associate themselves with a wide range of scholars and researchers throughout the world. We all want such practices to happen and we do not want them to be in any way inhibited. 
 Clause 8 states that nothing should restrict the activities of the arts and humanities research council to the UK or to any constituent part of the UK. That is a fairly simple and unequivocal statement, but perhaps the Minister can say whether it extends equally to the activities of scholars and researchers who are supported by the council and whether there are inhibitions on that. 
 I shall simply flag up the third point, because it is the subject of a later amendment. It concerns the need to ensure that any legal undertakings that have been concluded by the AHRB, and in particular its obligations to staff, are fully recognised and transferred. 
 When in government, we faced a situation in which the sector wanted a change and there was pressure for an arts and humanities research council. However, 10 years ago, we did not feel that the time was right. Indeed, I have emphasised some of the points that are more than purely theological or organisational. There are points of substance, on which my hon. Friend rightly questioned the Minister and which at least give rise to reservations about rushing into this process. As Sir Humphrey knew, Rome was not built in a day, and it has taken 10 years to get from the laying of the foundations, which I modestly hope I laid, to the fruition of the proposal today. 
 I am conscious that I could have made a cynical response at the time when I laid the foundations. I could have said, ''This is the way to block the proposal off, so that it might never be implemented'', but in fact I am quite happy that it has evolved through the way in which the Arts and Humanities Research Board has communicated with interested persons, developed authority and led the sector, and that the time is right to make this change. I pay tribute to the successive professors who have led the board; Laver, Eastwood and Crossick. I hope that I have not omitted one. There has been good leadership that has operated in a modest but effective way. The time has now come to move on, but we should not neglect the sensitivities. It is particularly important when there is such consensus on moving to this proposal that we do not pretend that there are no problems. We should simply deal with them in a grown-up way. 
 We all need to emphasise the importance of the arts and humanities in their own right. They are not irrelevant to the economic strength of the country. We are strong in many of those fields, and many of us would think it proper that we should be even if there were no economic worth to that. We must ensure that what the Minister is proposing, with an aura of good will on both sides of the Committee and a good deal of pressure to do so, delivers the result that we all want.

Alan Johnson: The points raised are perfectly valid. I am pleased that we have had the debate because we may, as you suggested Mr. Gale, be able to cover future debates on the clause more quickly.
 I shall provide an outline for why we believe the proposal to be such an important step forward and, in doing so, pick up on the points raised by Opposition Members. I believe that this aspect of the Bill has unanimous support; in my seven months in the job, I have not heard a single argument against it. The measure brings to fruition a tremendous amount of work, and I applaud the hon. Member for Daventry on setting aspects of the initiative in motion 10 years ago. However, we must remember that establishing an arts 
 and humanities research council was a specific recommendation of the Dearing inquiry into higher education. 
 The Arts and Humanities Research Board completely supports the proposal, including placing the council under the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the important reasons for doing that; if one research council remained in the DFES while the other seven were in the DTI, it would not have the same status. The AHRB has done a lot of work, as have the Office of Science and Technology, the DTI and the Government. A review of arts and humanities research—carried out internally but involving the devolved administrations and building on the Dearing and other recommendations—found that a fully fledged research council should be established. We believe that such a council gives proper recognition to the arts and humanities, which are important not only to the social fabric of the country, but to the economy and the interface with scientific research. 
 Part of the argument of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was about the business spin-offs from the council and its placement in the DTI. There are enormous business spin-offs. The creative industries, which accounted for 7.9 per cent. of our GDP in 2000, are growing at a rate of 9 per cent. a year. Tourism, which will be a major aspect of the research council, contributed £10.9 billion to export earnings in 2001 with the support of culture and heritage research. More than a third of overseas visitors cite the heritage sector as a prime reason for their visit.

Tim Collins: The Minister is right on that point, but he will recognise that responsibility for tourism promotion lies not with the DTI but with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Have officials in that Department been consulted and involved in the process?

Alan Johnson: Yes, they have. The DCMS might use the research council's resources for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman suggests. The central thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point was the priorities that he quoted. I reassure him that after the change, those priorities and everything associated with them from the OST will reflect the existence of the arts and humanities research council.
 Research in the humanities makes an important contribution to the development of public policy. That is a link with the scientific community, which was another point raised by the hon. Gentleman. Embryology, surrogacy, human genetics and cloning, as ethical aspects of the research council, will have an important link with the rest of the research council's work.

Tim Boswell: In support of the Minister's argument, I point out that Ruth Deech, who will be the first student complaints adjudicator, comes with a distinguished background in the humanities and with service on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. She is exactly the kind of person who stands with the humanities tradition in dealing with
 important matters, which in her previous activity were germane to the conduct of scientific research and the development of medical techniques.

Alan Johnson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am glad that he read that in to the record.
 Before I turn to the meat of clause 1, I should bring one other issue to your attention, Mr. Gale. As Committee members will know, the arts and humanities research council, like existing research councils, will operate throughout the UK and the primary legislation involves the UK Parliament legislating on a matter previously devolved to Scotland. By convention, there will be a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament. I understand that that is likely to be formally moved without debate in the Scottish Parliament on Thursday. We will know by the subsequent sitting whether that process has been completed. Our consideration of the clauses on the arts and humanities research council in so far as they relate to Scotland is framed by the Government's commitment to seek the consent of the Scottish Parliament when it plans to legislate on a devolved area at Westminster. 
 Clause 1 defines the AHRC as a body to be set up by royal charter. We are not establishing the body here. I think that we have distributed copies of the charter to Committee members. The charter provides, in broad terms, for the governance of the AHRC, its accountability to the taxpayer and the appointment of its senior officials, including the chief executive. I am advised that the chief executive was appointed by open competition in the normal way against the advertised job specification, and a splendid choice he is. Without clause 1, the AHRC would not be established and everyone agrees that that would be of great detriment to the research community. 
 The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale raised an important point when he spoke about the social sciences. The Economic and Social Research Council most closely equates to the arts and humanities research council. I remind him that when the idea emerged of putting social sciences under a research council under the Department of Trade and Industry, similar concerns were rightly expressed. However, with the passage of time it has proved to be successful and no one would argue that the council ought to be anywhere other than under the DTI. 
 I cannot remember who quoted the figure of £78 million that will transfer across. No significant savings are to be found in turning the board in to a research council. I can give the hon. Member for Daventry the assurance that he sought; we will debate the terms and conditions of the staff and they will be fully protected. There are some synergies but no significant savings. Resource transfers will make the change neutral in terms of funding for arts and humanities research. In the recent spending review, research funding increased and that increased research funding will transfer over to the research council.

Phil Willis: We accept that staff will be protected and that the resources will be transferred over, so there is no reason to question the Minister on that. We are concerned about the redistribution of resources in the future. The resources will all come through one Department, the DTI. Will the Department be able to give 90 per cent. of the total cake to science and technology, for instance, and squeeze arts and humanities research significantly? How will measures be put in place that ensure an equitable distribution of resources to the various research councils?

Alan Johnson: We have a specific amendment that relates precisely to that example, including the terms 90 per cent. and 10 per cent. Of course, unlike the funding councils, who allocate money on a much more methodological system, the research councils allocate money by peer review in response to specific applications and specific projects. That is an important definition. There is no question of the arts and humanities research council being any different from the other eight research councils in being able to respond to applications.

Tim Boswell: Like me, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough is perhaps feeling for some sense that Ministers at the DFES will continue to take an interest in the allocation of the money. Of course, it would be unreasonable to ask them to do the OST's job or that of the DTI, but I hope that they will at least undertake to make friendly representations if they feel that an imbalance has developed in the treatment the arts and humanities, the social sciences or, conceivably, the natural sciences.

Alan Johnson: I shall deal with that now. Let me clarify the situation as regards the OST consultation on dual support and the consultation on the research assessment exercise, which is due to be announced today. The Committee that deals with those issues includes myself, Lord Sainsbury and all the major players, and will ultimately decide how the research council's funding works. Therefore, DFES input is definitely part of the process.
 The hon. Member for Daventry raised the important issue of Apamanondus and the hoplite formation, but enough has been said about that. The issue has dominated the tabloids for weeks, and we need not dwell on it further. He also asked for reassurance as regards dual support, but he knows that that has already been given in the White Paper and in the letter that Lord Sainsbury and I recently sent to all the research councils. We believe that dual support is essential, and the vast majority of those in the research and higher education communities are with us on that. Even Lord May, whom I admire as much the hon. Member for Daventry does, has said that he is not calling for the end of dual support and that he is talking about something else; I am not exactly sure what, but that is what he claims. So I think there is unanimity on the issue and we certainly believe that dual support should continue.

Phil Willis: The Minister raises an important issue. We should not dismiss Lord May as a crank; he is an eminent researcher, and his views reflect what the Secretary of State said at the time of the White Paper. The Government's view was that there would be research-only and teaching-only universities. There is surely logic in what Lord May said, because if we go down the proposed road, the division between research and teaching will demand a different form of funding for research universities.

Alan Johnson: I fully accept that, and I hope that none of my comments suggested that Lord May was anything other than an eminent and valuable contributor to the debate. I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman's comments.
 The hon. Member for Daventry asked for a reassurance as regards international links. I will give him that, although I should point out that a later Opposition amendment would damage those links. However, we shall debate that in due course. With those comments, however, I ask the Committee to agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2 - Transfer to Council of property etc of Arts and Humanities Research Board

Chris Grayling: I beg to move amendment No. 126, in
clause 2, page 2, line 5, at end insert
'and carrying with it full employment and other rights reflecting the employee's service with the Board'.
 This is a simple proposal, which is designed to meet some of the concerns that frequently arise when status is transferred between Government bodies, from one corporate form to another. I say that because, on at least two occasions in my constituency, the message from the management of the organisations concerned to their staff contained ambiguities—probably inadvertently—that caused confusion and uncertainty among staff. 
 The amendment aims to set out a clear, simple and straightforward stipulation for the staff who work for the current board that their employment rights will remain unchanged and unaffected by the transition. It aims to remove the uncertainty that might exist if the message given were wrong. 
 A person in a similar situation told me, ''I am not sure if my pension rights will carry over in the same way. I am also not sure if one of my colleagues who, in the existing organisation, has the right to stay on for a particular period of time, will be able to do so under the new organisation, and so he may not able to continue his career as he had previously envisaged.'' 
 The amendment is designed to clarify for the members of staff that their rights will transfer. The Society of College Principals, the organisation representing higher education colleges, welcomes the 
 amendment. It believes that such clarification would be valuable to staff, and would like to see it added to the Bill. I hope that the amendment is uncontroversial; it will not make a material difference to what the Government are trying to achieve, nor will it cause problems for the council as it is established. 
 The amendment would clarify the situation for all staff who currently work for the legacy body—the previous body—when the new council is established and the royal charter is put in place, and when the new corporate framework in which those staff will work has been set up. It would reassure them that when the transition from a charitable organisation to a non-departmental public body takes place, nothing—their rights to pensions, to specific benefits after particular lengths of service or to their current pay scales, which may have led them to expect a pay rise next April—will be materially affected by the change. 
 I hope that the Government will accept the simple and straightforward amendment and will use it to send the message to staff that the provision is a positive step for the whole of the arts and humanities world and that the commitment to staff within it is absolute and straightforward.

Alan Johnson: I think that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks. However, he does not need to carry the amendment to achieve the effect that he wants. Incidentally, the TUPE regulations stem from the acquired rights directive, and it is rather ironic that the Opposition, when in government, fiercely opposed that directive. However, I accept that times change and that we now have champions of trade union rights in the Opposition. As John Lennon once said:
 ''A working-class hero is something to be.'' 
I am heartened by the interest shown in the matter. Clause 5 will ensure that there can be no ambiguity about pensions. However, it is worth mentioning that last year the Government included pensions as one of the issues that would be protected under a TUPE transfer; previously they were not covered, so that was an important development. However, to remove any doubt, we have dealt with pensions in a separate clause. 
 When the AHRB was created, it was itself subject to a TUPE transfer. That worked well and the AHRB is determined that when it becomes a council it will do the same thing. 
 We looked carefully to see whether anything was missing in relation to the transfer of employment rights, but there is not. All that would be achieved by adding the wording in the amendment would be to repeat the wording that is already in the Bill, because TUPE must be applied in relation to the transfer, and pensions are covered under clause 5. The hon. Gentleman can safely withdraw his amendment, because the terms that he rightly seeks are in the Bill as drafted.

Chris Grayling: I am grateful for the Minister's reassurance and for his statement, on the record, that TUPE applies in this case. In the related matter to which I referred, one of the uncertainties in the
 separate organisation involved in a similar type of change was that the employers had not made it explicit that TUPE applied, so there was a further uncertainty. The Minister has given a categorical assurance that all employment rights are protected and that there are no missing elements in the package that could slip through the net, and I am grateful to have that clarification on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Roger Gale: I remind hon. Members that if they seek to catch my eye they must do so before the debate is wound up.
 Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 - Expenses of Council

Simon Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 212, in
clause 3, page 2, line 11, at end insert—
 '(1A) Sums may not be paid under subsection (1) unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the principle of distribution set out in section [distribution principle for funding by research councils] will be adhered to.'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Distribution principle for funding by research councils—
 '(1) In distributing funding, the research councils to which this section applies shall have regard to the distribution principle in this section. 
 (2) That principle is that, in any period of twelve months, 10 per cent. of funds to be distributed shall be awarded to those institutions that have benefited the least from the distribution of the other 90 per cent. of funds. 
 (3) This section applies to— 
 (a) the Arts and Humanities and Research Council, 
 (b) the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council, 
 (c) the Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council, 
 (d) the Natural Environment Research Council, 
 (e) the Medical Research Council, 
 (f) the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, 
 (g) the Economic and Social Research Council, and 
 (h) the Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils.'.

Simon Thomas: I am looking forward to working with you on the Committee, Mr. Gale, to see how we can possibly improve this dreadful Bill.
 However, I welcome this part of the Bill because I completely agree with the establishment of the arts and humanities research council. The purpose of the amendment is to probe some of the ideas that were mentioned in the debates on the two previous clauses, especially what may happen under the dual support mechanism when the Bill's proposals on variable tuition fees—top-up fees—come into play. 
 I tabled the amendment because I am worried that a two-tier system of higher education—teaching universities and colleges, and research institutions—will develop in the United Kingdom. The current meld of the two from which we benefit so much in terms of undergraduate and postgraduate teaching will be 
 undermined and weakened in many parts of the country and, over time, will decline. Instead, there will be a concentration of research money, institutions and expertise in certain areas; for example, the golden triangle around Oxford, Cambridge and the Thames valley. The amendment was tabled to try to ensure that the Government do not achieve what they want in that respect. We will see how far we get. 
 The amendment would change the funding of the research councils, assuming that the arts and humanities research council is established by royal charter. I remind hon. Members that at present the dual support mechanism means that there is a payment from the funding councils in Wales and England. Two different funding councils make payments to fund the general cost of the basic research infrastructure, including laboratories and equipment. Arts and humanities do not need laboratories and equipment, but they need offices, IT and so on, from the general funding councils. I assume that that will continue. 
 The other element is provided by the research councils and depends on the research assessment exercise, which is much cursed by academics, certainly those in Aberystwyth and Lampeter. Every department is assessed on the basis of its research capabilities and excellence and those that achieve a five or five-star assessment are eligible to apply for grants from the research councils, although they do not necessarily get them. As the Minister said, the way that the application system works is that proposals are made; I think an awful lot are recycled. 
 Under the Royal Society exchange scheme between parliamentarians and scientists, I have had the opportunity to spend some interesting times in the last couple of months with a scientist in Aberystwyth called Dr. Gareth Griffith. As an arts and humanities graduate, I found it an eye opener to visit the laboratories and the infrastructure, good and bad, where Dr. Griffith works and to try to appreciate the immense time and effort that he spends in making applications to research councils and for external research. For example, he is applying to carry out research on a type of cocoa fungus, which could be useful for the Department for International Development in overcoming the problem that the fungus causes in developing countries such as Brazil and on the west coast of Africa. 
 All sorts of interesting work is going on in our universities, as we well know. It is interesting to be directly exposed to that, and to have an idea of the immense amount of administrative time and effort that goes in to so much academic work nowadays. Much work is done on applying for money and trying to get extra bits of resources to patch together a decent research department in order to attract the best students and lecturers and to build success. The problem is that if a department cannot quite get there and is drowning at the shoreline, as we Welsh say, it will never be good enough to make an application to the research councils; it will always be able to get 
 something from its funding council and to maintain some level of infrastructure, but it will not be able to break through. 
 The Government have tried to do something with student support and access in the Bill, which we will debate later. It is interesting that they have recognised that some institutions cream off the best students, and that some students may be prevented from attending some institutions by barriers other than academic ability. Through the Office for Fair Access, the Government seek a different way to ensure that there is a spread of ability throughout the higher education institutions of England and Wales, without artificial barriers. 
 With these amendments, we are trying to do much the same for the research councils, at least in principle. We recognise that there are good departments that undertake interesting lines of research that could benefit the economic development and cultural welfare of this country. They are not quite able to access the research council funding because they are caught in the double bind of not being able to get the good research in order to get funding and a five-star grading and, therefore, never quite break through. 
 For example—I can only give examples from Wales, the area I know best—I contacted the research councils and asked, ''What sort of allocation is there between England and Wales, because Wales has about 5 per cent. of the population, but about 6 per cent. of the students?'' We have always educated a lot of students in Wales. I wanted to know what proportion of research council money was generally being spent in Wales and in England. 
 About ten years ago, an eminent politician and physicist who will be known to the Welsh members of the Committee, Dr. Phil Williams—sadly, he died last year—found that Wales was being short-changed by the research councils. He found that about 2 or 3 per cent. of funding was coming to Wales, even though it had 5 per cent. of the population and 6 per cent. of students. I understand that the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs is looking into that and that the research councils are gathering information for that Committee, but they do not have that information yet. I am concerned that we may be creating systems when we should be collecting relevant information about where the money will be allocated in order to ensure that it will not feed those institutions that other parts of the Bill, and OFFA, are trying to change.

Jonathan R Shaw: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the HEFCE will provide a capacity fund of £20 million to support research in emerging subject areas in which the research base is not strong and established? Does not that answer some of his concerns about the need to pump-prime areas that we want to progress?

Simon Thomas: Yes, it does. I am aware of the initiative. My amendment is simply a probing amendment to elicit an explanation of how this pans out. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that is exactly what he said it was; pump-priming. In principle, my amendment is an ongoing mechanism,
 which, over time, could change the funding system. The system the hon. Gentleman describes attempts to get people on to a springboard so that they can attain that research council funding. There is no principle at stake here about whether we go down this or that route, but it is important that we recognise the current lack of equity in research council funding.
 That lack of equity is due to the fact that some institutions started from a lower base. They received less funding than the more established institutions. They have always struggled to attract lecturers, teachers, staff and students to hit those gradings of five and more within the research evaluation exercise. The hon. Gentleman will know what institutions I am talking about because they have featured in other parts of our discussion on the Bill. The more historic institutions also find it easier to attract private money to match-fund. It is much harder for a tiny university such as Lampeter to attract private funding. It is interesting to look at a university like that because its research into ethics precisely reflects what the Minister was saying earlier about biotechnology, genetic engineering, human fertilisation and so on. 
 In conclusion, I should like to look at a couple of the research councils, but as I said earlier, I do not want to criticise them per se. My amendment recognises that they will give money to the best research. I am concerned that that is a bit of self-perpetuating mechanism that can go against what we are trying to achieve, at least in the better parts of the Bill. The Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council has managed to fund eight postgraduates at the university of Wales, the lowest figure for any university. The university of Wales is a collegiate university, made up of five or six different colleges. In other universities such as York the figure is 83, in Cambridge it is 210 and in Oxford it is 86. I do not want to continue with those numbers. There is a discrepancy; I say no more than that. 
 The Particle Physics and Astronomy Research Council is supporting only 19 grants in Wales. That brings to mind the history of the Diamond synchrotron. Many of us hoped for sentimental reasons that it would come to Aberystwyth as the theory of synchrotron radiation was developed by George Schott in Aberystwyth itself. But it did not go to Aberystwyth, which is an objective 1 area, and neither did it go to Liverpool and the Wirral, which was also in the running as an objective 1 area. It went to an area that is already quite well off with such institutions. 
 Finally, the Medical Research Council does not support any major centres in Wales. We have a well-advanced school of medicine in Cardiff and developments in Bangor and Swansea, too. There is obviously a need to get those developments up and give them a boost so that they can compete for medical research council money. I hope that the amendments will spark a response from the Minister and perhaps a debate about the purpose of the research councils. 
 This Bill replaces the Arts and Humanities Research Board with an arts and humanities research council. We must ask a wider question about the research councils' purpose and ensure that research money does not go to the same institutions time and time again. All institutions should have fair access, just as the Bill tries to ensure that students have the same level of access. We should think of innovative ways—either pump-priming or within the funding system—to ensure that. Research councils can and will enrich an even wider range of institutions. In doing so, we shall ensure that neither the other measures in the Bill nor this narrow aspect of it will help to create a two-tier level of education. There should always be the potential for every institution in England and Wales to undertake serious and highly regarded research. We all want to see that; I hope that the Minister does too, and that he will talk about how the research council can achieve that.

Chris Grayling: I followed the hon. Gentleman's remarks with interest, but I disagree. I understand where he is coming from; I understand smaller and regional institutions' concerns about the direction and support of research funding. However, I do not believe that his amendments would provide an adequate solution to those concerns, and I shall explain why.
 There is no doubt that the Government are consciously channelling funding in to a smaller number of institutions. The structure of the research assessment exercise, the focus on five-star departments and the gradual erosion of resources for departments that have a lower level of achievement have significant implications for the education system in the regions. There is no question that that will cause significant problems for many universities and other higher education institutions. The provisions that create an arts and humanities research council are a counterbalance to that. They will channel funds to smaller institutions so as to maintain their research capability. The strong message coming from the smaller institutions is that they are concerned that without a research dimension to what they do, they may find it much more difficult to maintain the quality and substance of teaching staff. The Government must consider that carefully. The Minister, in making changes to the four-star institutions, clearly has the issue on his mind. 
 I recently visited Coventry university, which described its research support work for the motor industry in the midlands as extremely important both to the institution and to industry in that area. There is no doubt that many regional universities have strong links in research and teaching with key local industries. If the Government's approach to research finding makes it more difficult to carry out such research, that has implications for our regional economies, industries and the institutions themselves. The Government's balanced approach to the distribution of funding to research centres is important; we must ensure that we have strong international centres of research excellence at the forefront of their field on the global stage. 
 There are also areas where focus on the smaller number of research centres has a direct, adverse effect on services. A specific example is the health service. The research assessment exercise has concentrated medical research in individual disciplines in a smaller number of departments. The problem is that if a medical school loses a department researching a specific clinical area, the potential consequence is that if the area disappears, so do the consultants, who spread their time between research work, teaching and providing clinical care in the adjoining NHS hospital. The patients may suffer if that happens, so it is important to find a balance. 
 The amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) takes us in the wrong direction. It takes away the ability of the research councils to channel their funding to those projects they deem the best and most effective. The peer review system that says—regardless of the institution or where it is situated in the country—that funding for a research project will be provided based on merit, on the assessment of peers and on their judgement of the quality of the work, has to be the right way to go. For us, effectively, to bottom-slice part of the funding allocation and say where it must go—regardless of whether those institutions have projects of merit or departments with the critical mass to carry out those projects—would be the wrong way to sort out this problem. 
 The councils are doing a good job of channelling funding. I am not sure I agree with the assessment of the hon. Member for Ceredigion. For example, the Arts and Humanities Research Board has provided grants for work done by the university of Wales in Aberystwyth, or in Cardiff. More particularly, it is providing funding across a wide range of institutions. There are projects for Anglia polytechnic university and the university of Central Lancashire, as well as for the Russell group of universities, our most successful universities.

Simon Thomas: I hope the hon. Gentleman recognises that I was trying to raise the debate rather than put an argument one way or another. Nevertheless, he has raised an important point. I think one thing we need to bear in mind is that although research in arts and humanities is labour-intensive—the best staff and students and so forth need to be attracted—science research is also capital-intensive, in a different way from much arts and humanities research. We need to bear in mind not only what the Arts and Humanities Research Board has been achieving, but also the concentration of science-based research in specific institutions. He acknowledged that at the start of his remarks.

Chris Grayling: I accept that situation and would anticipate, in the current climate, individual institutions focusing their research efforts more on specific areas where they have a unique selling point, a particular local or regional need or an industry into which that research can feed. It is important that those
 regional centres remain, and it is excellent that they deliver high-quality research to meet the needs of their area.
 I would not wish to see an engineering by politicians in the allocation of grants. Ultimately, if we move away from a system of peer review and from a system that says that if a university is excellent in an area, it will be funded—if funding, instead, is by formula—we risk, given the trends in funding council channels, having an engineered system through the research council funding channels as well. We are well served by letting the academic world take decisions about the best projects to fund. I hope the Minister will have some comments about the issues that the hon. Gentleman raised, but I do not think that these amendments do the job that he hoped they would.

Tim Boswell: I thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion for raising this issue. It is right that we should have a debate although, like my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell, probably in the end my head has to rule my heart. I can see substantial reservations in the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. It may be of some aid and consolation to him to know that a research charity in the biological sciences that I used to chair and of which I am still a member—it preceded my membership of the research council—gave a significant number of its grants to the university of Wales, in particular, for projects that appealed to it. It is by no means barred or impossible to obtain private or not-for-profit funding in that area.
 As the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) said, there is also a degree of sensitivity in the traditional funding for development work, in terms of the HEFCE fund. Back when the new universities came on stream after 1992, we put aside £50 million as a special fund for development work in them. 
 To stand back from the debate and make a general point, I think that the dilemma that the hon. Member for Ceredigion exposed with his amendment is similar to that which we will discuss on student admissions. The dilemma is whether one supports merit or potential that may not have been realised in meritorious performance. That is a rather wide philosophical issue, which I will perhaps keep for a later date. 
 I would like the Minister to comment on two specific points. One point relates to my experience of research funding. It was said that the process of peer review was semi-exclusive, because people who were on either research councils or assessment and grants panels working to inform and advise research councils on their decisions tended to be from a particular coterie. It is difficult to break into that. 
 My second specific point is on arts and humanities research. It was always said that there was something of a famous triangle centred on London, Oxford and Cambridge, and no further, and that was a concern to me in my time as a Minister although it may recently have dissipated slightly. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell rightly showed in 
 reading out a list of grants, the AHRB has made grants outside that triangle. It has also made progress in what I might call softening the edges of the triangle. It would be helpful if the Minister commented on that. 
 I also have two general points. First, it is clear that we need a viable and vibrant higher education system that is available throughout the country. It is important that students can access regional centres of excellence, which as my hon. Friend said is also true of the national health service, and that we ensure that higher education does not have any no-go areas in this country. Secondly, the system must be open to people of excellence, who can enter the system, get support and have their potential turned into meritorious performance. 
 I conclude with a quotation from Napoleon. I think that he said that every private has to have a field marshal's baton in his knapsack. Every researcher, be they in Aberystwyth, Bangor or somewhere in Cumbria—if we can set up a Cumbrian university—should have the opportunity to get into the system. That means the full Monty: access to the research councils and to HEFCE money under the dual system of funding through research assessment. It is important that the Minister should deliver. I know that he wants to, and I look forward to his comments.

Jonathan R Shaw: I want to make some brief remarks about research funding, which the Select Committee on Education and Skills looked into in considerable detail. When the White Paper was published, much of the focus was understandably on student finance, but the Select Committee quickly understood that research funding was an important issue. We talk about the number of students going to university and the debt that they may or may not incur after university, but the quality of the product is essential to students while they are at university. The research base is important to maintain quality. We had many concerns in the Select Committee, given that 75 per cent. of research funding goes to 25 universities. We were further concerned when HEFCE wanted to increase the funding going to four star-rated departments by £10 million. However, Ministers intervened and, according to Sir Howard Newbury, required HEFCE to reduce that. The proposed figure of £148 million for 2003-04 was reduced to £118 million. The Government need to bear that in mind if the expansion that I support passionately is to occur. It is important that level four research universities should be able to develop those specialisms so that they may go on to five and six star level.

Tim Boswell: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, in order to inform the argument, Universities UK has made available to the Select Committee and subsequently compelling evidence that many of the highest-rated research projects and departments have developed from a comparatively low rating—from three to five stars, say—in a short time?

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will remember the Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall on the issue in which the two of us and two other hon.
 Members participated while Iraq was being debated on the Floor of the House. Westminster Hall, as you can imagine, Mr. Gale, was packed to the gunnels, but it was a good and well-informed debate, and the hon. Gentleman made some useful contributions. He is right; I quoted an example from my area. Greenwich university developed important fire and evacuation modelling, which has now won a Queen's award. That began at level three and it is now level five. It is important for the Government to recognise that one has to build up infrastructure over a number of years. In this case, infrastructure is people. If the funding is not there, the professors will leave, and what will happen to the rest of the staff?

Phil Willis: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one of the key components of any research university—particularly those new universities that are struggling to get into the research programme—is having post-graduate students who wish to stay on and to engage in research? By racking up the level of debt that students will have by the time they graduate, the idea of attracting them into research, often on a relatively low stipend—

Roger Gale: Order. I have a sneaking feeling that these are issues that we might debate later.

Jonathan R Shaw: The hon. Gentleman could not resist it, could he?
 It is important that staff in universities should be paid at a reasonable level. The measures that the Government are introducing will allow pay to increase, and that is an important part of the infrastructure to which I referred. I shall conclude by saying that the Select Committee was very concerned about how that will affect emerging research, such as the examples that I have quoted from my constituency. 
 In order for our universities to compete with America—the top 14 universities are there, and the fifteenth is in Britain—we need the critical mass that is so important in science-based universities. Those—Warwick is a good example—must develop if we are to continue to nurture world-class universities.

Roger Gale: Before I invite the Minister to respond, might I gently remind him that the clause deals with research funding, not other matters? I am sure that he will not wish to stray into other areas at this point.

Alan Johnson: You are absolutely right, Mr. Gale.
 I congratulate the hon. Member for Ceredigion on raising the issue; we have had a fair debate about research funding. The Bill would be truly dreadful if his amendment were made. I realise that it is a probing amendment, but it would not only deal with the arts and humanities research council, but would change the basis for funding all research councils, which have been 90 per cent. successful for the last 40 years. We would be taking a dangerous step if we went down the route suggested by the hon. Gentleman. However, he raised some important points and that gives me an opportunity to respond. 
 The hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell was kind enough to send me a note explaining that he had to leave because he had to take his wife to hospital, but his contribution was absolutely right, as were those of the hon. Member for Daventry and my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. We must fund the best research. We have a world-class research infrastructure second only to, but a long way behind, that of the United States of America. It would be a forlorn ambition to catch up with the USA, but to stay in second place is crucially important, particularly considering the huge advances and investment in research in countries such as India in China.

Tim Boswell: On the arts and humanities, it would be fair to claim that we can punch our weight equally with the Americans, if not excel them.

Alan Johnson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, which is why it is important to continue that development through this Bill.

Jonathan R Shaw: I agree with my right hon. Friend about the US. However, during the proceedings of the Select Committee, we learned that the Government's proposals would mean that our funding is even more concentrated than that in the US.

Alan Johnson: I will come to that point later because it must be dealt with.
 Points were raised about HEFCE's allocation of QR money, rather than the allocation of the research council. However, the point is important, and particularly its effect on Wales. It is important to establish that research is currently considered on a national basis by the research councils. The money is not distributed to institutions, which is the wording of the amendment of the hon. Member for Ceredigion, but is awarded primarily to individual researchers and collaborations. The research council funding goes primarily to institutions. In that further respect, his probing amendment should remain probing and not be made. 
 There has been a lot of misrepresentation of the Government's actions a year ago. What was meant as a shock to the system ended up purely as a shock. However, the context must be remembered. We are investing another £1.25 billion in research—roughly a 34 per cent. increase in our research base. We cannot distribute that money on the usual basis. We must ensure that we fund excellent research, including emerging research, and make the best use of taxpayers' money. 
 Last year at our bidding the Higher Education Funding Council for England, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford pointed out from the evidence submitted to the Select Committee, redistributed 2 per cent. of the total research budget—£20 million. That created a fair degree of concern but, as the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell and others pointed out, that concern expressed by the research establishment a year ago has calmed down to a certain extent. We patently do not intend to concentrate all 
 resources on the famous golden triangle, or as Lord Dearing described it ''a rugby ball'', in the south-east. Last year, some 43 institutions received more than £5 million-worth of funding, and that allocation was spread fairly throughout the country.

Anne Campbell: The Government's policy has my unqualified support, especially as I represent an area with one of the country's top universities. Would the Minister agree that it is important that researchers and teaching staff do not feel excluded from research? It is important that all universities have the infrastructure to allow people with top research qualifications to pursue their interests.

Alan Johnson: I agree, although it might not necessarily be in the same institution. There is a clear link between scholarship, teaching and research, as we have repeated over and over again.
 Let me deal now with the concerns that were expressed last year. Hon. Members will now know that the funding councils—indeed, today, they will announce the result of the latest round of consultation on the research assessment exercise—have stabilised the amounts going into four-rated departments at £118 million and have made that funding real by linking it to inflation. On top of that, we have set up the research forum, which gives everybody involved—the National Union of Students, Universities UK and the royal societies—an opportunity to discuss common objectives and establish a common analysis of how research should proceed in the future. 
 On the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Ceredigion, he is mistaken that departments must have a five-star rating to qualify for research council funding. Research councils allocate funds on the basis of research excellence not simply of the RAE assessment of the institution. 
 There is an issue in Wales. By and large, Welsh applications are successful; indeed, they do very well. The problem is that institutions do not get enough applications in to research councils. Recent research showed that Wales, which has 5 per cent. of the UK's population, receives 3.3 per cent. of UK funding, and Welsh higher education institutions have agreed a target of 4.5 per cent. to reflect the subject mix at Welsh universities. A lot of work is being done to reach the desired level, but ring-fencing and preferential treatment will not help. It is not too difficult, in judging the amendments, and particularly new clause 5, to let one's head rule one's heart, as the hon. Member for Daventry said. 
 There is consensus among all political parties about the need to ensure that we fund excellent research and that we do not put taxpayers' money into research that is less than excellent. That involves another level of funding. We have talked about dual support, but there is also triple support in the form of the higher education innovation fund, which will allocate another £90 million. HEFCE and the funding councils 
 for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are specifically allocating money to excellent, emerging research at three and three A rated departments. 
 We have an opportunity to resolve the problem that the hon. Gentleman raised in respect of Wales and, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has said, the Government recognise the issue. Although this is a White Paper matter rather than a Bill matter, taking forward our proposals to ensure that we maintain our excellent, world-class research base is crucial to this country's economy and that, I am afraid, is one reason why the Committee should reject the amendment.

Simon Thomas: I want to respond briefly to one or two points. The amendment did not find much favour, and I am glad that my arguments had a slightly better reception.
 It is important to recognise that some research departments need to build capacity so that they can compete for the money. I accept that they do not necessarily need a five rating to do so, but that is the case in Wales, and few departments with a rating of four or below get much of the money. That exacerbates the situation, and institutions that feel that they are not being looked on favourably do not try to compete, thus falling into a vicious circle. That is true not only of Wales but of regions in England. Indeed, the amendments were about all of England and Wales and sought to ensure that we did not concentrate research moneys only in one area. 
 Before withdrawing the amendment, I want to clarify one point. On the whole, I welcomed the comments by the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell, but he said that the amendments were an example of engineering by politicians. To be frank, however, the Minister has explained that there is an awful lot of engineering going on anyway. The amendment would have ensured that the research councils themselves would take that bottom-slicing—probably an apt term—and be responsible for the spending of that money, rather than politicians or Ministers. 
 The hon. Member for Daventry made an important point when he talked about a coterie, with like appointing like. We have seen examples of that—recent discussions about new fellows of the Royal Society, for instance—in which certain people were not seen as suitable types for joining the club. We have seen all too many such incidents in the past and it is important to break through that. 
 The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford made an important point about staff pay. I met somebody during the Royal Society exchange who had been on a continuous research contract for 12 years, but who had never received security of tenure and was now being paid less than some postgrad students, simply because the research money coming in from that avenue was particularly well-endowed. That person was not receiving that money, despite being there for more than a decade. We should bear in mind such examples when we consider how bad pay levels are for some research staff and fellows. 
 We have had a worthwhile debate about what research councils are about and how they work in the context of the rest of the Bill. I suspect that the rest of 
 the debate on the Bill will be about undergrads, but it is important to consider the enrichment that the money in question brings to all our institutions and the contribution that that makes to our cultural and economic life. Given the replies and the nature of the debate, which I found encouraging, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Tim Collins: I beg to move amendment No. 125, in
clause 3, page 2, line 12, leave out subsection (2).

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 8 stand part.
 I should explain to the Committee that both the amendment and clause 8 deal with extra-territorial activities. The amendment will be taken now; clause 8 will be debated now, but will be voted on at the appropriate time in the course of our proceedings.

Tim Collins: I begin by immediately reassuring both the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry that the amendment is, of course, probing. Subject to reassurances that I hope and expect the Minister will be able to give us, we shall not press it to a vote.
 The amendment and clause 8 relate to activities by the arts and humanities research council outside the UK. I am sure that we all recognise that research in those fields needs to be done outside the UK. Perhaps significantly—given my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry's point about the internet—such research is also highly likely to involve academics and researchers who are based outside the UK. However, it would be helpful if the Minister reassured us on two points. 
 First, we are talking about the expenditure of UK taxpayer resources. Given that, would the Minister say whether, in a normal year, he expected the preponderance of arts and humanities research that the UK taxpayer would support through funding to be conducted either by UK citizens or within the UK, or both? I am not expecting the Minister to give percentages or precise figures on that, but some comment would be helpful. 
 Secondly, we need to address duplication that might otherwise arise. I am sure that the Minister and other members of the Committee are familiar with the already considerable panoply of institutions that have a role in the field. Those include the UK Research Office, which has a role in representing research work that is in part conducted overseas, and, increasingly, the European Union. At the end of 2002, the European Commission officially launched the sixth research framework programme, which, for the first time, specifically provides for inputs from all relevant academic subjects, including the humanities. In 2003, the Arts and Humanities Research Board was admitted as a member of the European science foundation. There is also a continuing debate about the possible creation of a European research council. 
 We would like a reassurance that the Government are alive to the dangers of possible duplication and that excessive amounts of the money that taxpayers 
 provide through Parliament for academic research work will not be consumed by more liaison committees or by attempts to identify separate funding streams. 
 In that context, in April last year, the AHRB hosted a conference at Carlton house terrace, purely on European funding. If we are not careful, there will be more meetings and seminars incurring more expense; not to discuss research work or even to meet other researchers, but to discuss how to gain access to more funding, partly to pay for the meetings to talk about access to funding. 
 That concern is confined not just to those in academic research. There is growing anxiety in local, national and even European Government that more effort is being devoted to liaison between different levels of decision makers than to getting things done. 
 I seek two straightforward assurances from the Minister, which I hope he will be able to give, in which case I will not press the amendment to a Division.

Tim Boswell: I support my hon. Friend. I, too, have some concerns about European funding. In respect of the research framework programmes and student exchanges, Britain has not taken its traditional stance on matters European, and has, properly, been in the forefront in terms of traffic and the receipt of grants. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale is right to put down a marker to say that we do not want money taken to an international level if it can be sensibly administered nationally. I draw the analogy with overseas aid, where it is clear that bilateral programmes from the UK are more successful than some of the multilateral programmes delivered through other institutions.
 Secondly, as the Minister knows, I am a supporter of the international activities in arts and humanities research. I do not row back from that, but there is an important accountancy point; if moneys are being spent abroad on behalf of the British taxpayer it may not be easy to capture or control them to the satisfaction of the Public Accounts Committee, for example. The Minister may need to reflect on that. I am making a general point, because it will save my making a speech later. The matter arises from the council's expenses. Whether the new council is run by the DTI or by the interests of the Minister's Department, it is important that Ministers keep a friendly grip—perhaps I should say an interest—on the council's running costs to ensure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale said, that taxpayers' money goes into research and not into meetings to discuss whether research should take place. 
 I do not suggest in any sense that either the research councils or the AHRB has been profligate, but it is terribly important that Ministers should satisfy themselves on a continuing basis that things are being done with a strict regard to economy, with the money going to delivery and not to the process.

Alan Johnson: Hon. Members will be aware of the increasing importance of collaboration in research projects. That is why I will ask the Committee to resist amendment No. 125, which I accept is a probing amendment, and to support clause 8, because we are dealing with its proposals in this debate.
 I give the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale the two assurances that he seeks. Yes, the funding will be predominantly for UK-based activity. In terms of duplication, I will take an even more personal interest in the matter than usual, as the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue. However, some UK research bodies will access European money, so there may be duplication, but it is not our money that pays for the duplication. Indeed, there is cost-effectiveness in that respect. However, I accept the hon. Gentleman's points and I assure him that we will try to avoid duplication whenever possible. 
 I was asked about the percentage and although I do not have the exact figure for what is being spent on international collaboration, 3.76 per cent. of the research funding allocated by the AHRB was for collaborative projects; I am sure that the lion's share of that will be international collaboration. 
 Such collaboration is extremely important, and needs to be continued. The research councils are actively engaged in funding international scientific priorities through subscriptions to international organisations such as the European Space Agency and the European southern observatory; through support for facilities outside the United Kingdom, including the British Antarctic Survey and oceanographic research ships; and through research programmes such as those in the Gambia, where we are studying a variety of diseases including HIV/AIDS, measles and malaria. The amendment would remove the certainty that expenses associated with such activities were provided for by the Secretary of State. 
 Clause 8 largely duplicates provisions in the Science and Technology Act 1965, which provides the legal basis for ensuring that nothing in this part of the Bill restricts the activities of the arts and humanities research council to the UK or to any part of it. The council would thus be able to fund research that involved collaboration of the sort that I have described with researchers and academics across national boundaries, as well as at a European and wider international level. 
 I hope that the Committee will agree that we are dealing with an important facet of the work of the research council, reject the amendment and agree that clause 8 should stand part of the Bill.

Tim Collins: I am most grateful to the Minister. He has given precisely the assurances that I sought. Indeed, many hon. Members may have thought that he made a powerful case for more than 3.76 per cent. to be devoted to international collaboration. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Simon Thomas: I beg to move amendment No. 199, in
clause 3, page 2, line 14, after 'State', insert
'and each of the devolved administrations'.

Roger Gale: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 200, in
clause 3, page 2, line 16, after 'State', insert 
 'and each of the devolved administrations'. 
No. 201, in 
clause 3, page 2, line 19, after 'State', insert 
 'and each of the devolved administrations'. 
No. 202, in 
clause 3, page 2, line 20, at end insert 
 'and each of the devolved administrations'. 
No. 203, in 
clause 4, page 2, line 24, after 'State', insert 
 'and each of the devolved administrations'. 
No. 204, in 
clause 4, page 2, line 26, after 'State', insert 
 'and each of the devolved administrations'. 
No. 205, in 
clause 4, page 2, line 31, after 'State', insert 
 'and each of the devolved administrations'. 
No. 206, in 
clause 6, page 3, line 8, after 'State', insert 
 'and each of the devolved administrations'. 
No. 207, in 
clause 6, page 3, line 11, after 'State', insert 
 'and each of the devolved administrations'. 
No. 208, in 
clause 6, page 3, line 12, at end insert 
 'and each of the devolved administrations'.

Simon Thomas: I hope that we will be able to deal with these amendments in much the same way as the previous group.

Alan Johnson: We will if the hon. Gentleman withdraws them. [Laughter.]

Simon Thomas: Exactly.
 The background to the amendments is the relationship between the new research council and the devolved Administrations. Earlier, the Minister noted that we are legislating for matters that are devolved to Scotland and that a similar motion will have to be debated by the Scottish Parliament. That leads me to ask what we should do with regard to Wales and Northern Ireland. They are not quite the same constitutionally, but the matter is relevant and real when dealing with their relationship with the councils. We have already debated the funding gap for research councils in Wales. The aspiration of the National Assembly for Wales is to see the amount increase to 4.5 per cent. My aspiration is a little higher again. Nevertheless, people have an expectation. 
 I have concentrated on the arts and humanities research council. Having been criticised on a previous amendment for including everyone, I hope that I will not be criticised for including only one body in these amendments. I want to find out what will be the reporting mechanism between the arts and humanities research council—and, by implication, the other research councils—and the devolved Administrations. 
 The most important amendment, I suggest, is amendment No. 204, which would ensure that the new research council gave a report on its functions during the previous year to the devolved Administrations as well as to the Secretary of State. If the Bill goes through in its present shape, higher education as a whole will be further devolved to the National Assembly, and it is vital that the Assembly has a grip on what is happening in the research councils, that it knows what sort of expenditure is going on and that it has a good relationship with them. 
 It could be argued that that will happen naturally, and that the research council will want to talk to its stakeholders and to the National Assembly, the other co-funding partner that will be giving money to HEFCW. A natural relationship will emerge. However, it is always best when going through such things in Committee that we probe and tease out whether what we assume will happen is what Ministers want to happen. 
 That is the purpose of the amendments, and their aims are pretty self-explanatory. In a nutshell, the amendments will ensure that the arts and humanities research council gives the Assembly an idea of its programmes and expenditure in advance, takes account of what the Assembly has to say about those estimates and those programmes and then reports formally to the Assembly at the end of the year in a formal way, in the same way as it would report to the Secretary of State for Wales. The same would apply to the Scottish Parliament and the potential is there for the Northern Ireland Assembly. I hope that the Minister can say something positive about the relationship between the new research council and the devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom.

Alan Johnson: As the hon. Gentleman predicted I cannot accept the amendments. They are probing amendments and I believe that I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurances that he seeks. The AHRC will be required to report annually on the research that it commissions in territorially specific subjects as well as on the regional distribution of its research funding. Further, it will send copies of its formal annual report and accounts to the relevant Ministers across the UK who would then be free to place them in their respective parliamentary assembly libraries and research centres.
 A new UK-wide forum of Ministers, shadowed by an officials group, now plays an important role in monitoring the effectiveness of the research funding system and will provide the devolved Administrations with a valuable opportunity to pursue and discuss the performance of the AHRC with the DTI and the Office of Science and Technology. The draft royal charter—the hon. Gentleman may not have had a chance to absorb it all as it is a bit wordy—takes account of the need to support cultural and territorial research in different parts of the UK. We have given a commitment that the quinquennial review of the AHRC will examine its performance in dealing with such research. 
 To reassure the hon. Gentleman further, let me remind him and other hon. Members that we are not starting from scratch when we set up the AHRC. It will join a family of existing research councils with which the devolved nations already have a well-established and constructive relationship. I expect that relationship to continue when the AHRC is established. 
 Members of the Committee may not be aware of the detailed recommendation of the review of the AHRB. It concluded that the current system of four-way reporting and accountability to the funding councils in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland was unsatisfactory and that the inherent instability in the AHRB led to awkwardness in the arrangements for funding, accounting and governance. It led the review to conclude that the current arrangements could not continue indefinitely. Those recommendations were endorsed by Ministers in each of the devolved Administrations. Bearing in mind these points and the safeguards that I have explained, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Simon Thomas: It is useful to have that explanation on the record and it will inform the AHRC. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Roger Gale: Just before we come to amendment No. 9, I have told the Clerk that Mr. Hood should be informed that, subject to the debate on the amendment, there will be no need for a clause stand part debate.

Tim Collins: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in
clause 3, page 2, line 18, leave out subsection (5).
 Subsection (5) states: 
 ''Programmes and estimates under subsection (4) must be given—(a) in the form required by the Secretary of State, and (b) at the times required by the Secretary of State.'' 
It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.
 Laxton, Mr.  Lewis, Mr.  Mountford, Kali  Mudie, Mr.  Plaskitt, Mr.  Purnell, James  Rendel, Mr.  Shaw, Jonathan  Thomas, Mr.  Touhig, Mr.  Twigg, Derek  Willis, Mr.